[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BITS from the DPL For September/October 2019


On 10/29/19 11:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] we do not have clear
> project consensus that sysvinit support is mandatory in new packages, so
> the support is starting to bitrot, and given the lack of clear project
> guidance, no one is clearly empowered to prevent it from bitrotting.

I think we mostly agree on the topic, but now what the consensus is.

My understanding is that the current guidance is that doing init script
isn't mandatory. What is mandatory, is to ACK init scripts / patches
when contributed (through the BTS).

I think that's fair enough for everyone, and I don't see why we need to
change anything to this rule.

> The current Policy text is a mess, and everything it says on the topic is
> essentially accidental, being left over from text that was added to
> clarify how to support upstart, before the TC decision on the default init
> system.  It's unclear what requirements Policy should actually set on
> packages that want to ship daemons, and any attempt to hammer that out is
> likely to be contentious and have great difficulty reaching consensus.

Sure, the Debian policy text needs some love and contributions, though
what I wrote above is more or less what we all agreed on. Besides this,
the state of the policy is (unfortunately, and because the policy needs
updates) orthogonal to this discussion.

> I think it was the right thing to do to refuse to make a clear long-term
> decision at the time, when the project had just gone through a bruising
> and awful argument.  Now that we have some distance and have seen how the
> ecosystem has subsequently evolved, I think it's time to circle back and,
> hopefully with more accumulated wisdom, a bit of emotional distance, and a
> bit more calm, make the deferred decision.

Make what deferred decision? That we want to actively dismiss patches
adding init script support? This IMO would just destroy any work
attempted in the non-linux ports, or anyone willing to add support for a
new init system. I don't think that's fair for these. Voting them out
would not feel right.

> If we're really going to continue to fully support sysvinit

As much as I understand, we never wrote or decided we would. We just
need to accept patches to add or fix sysv-rc scripts. What makes you
think sysv-rc scripts are mandatory?

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: